If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.

FAQ How can you be an atheist Jew?

An atheist is one who disbelieves in (or denies) the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew, or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

March 30, 2008

Lex over at Gripes of Wrath has found a very good article entitled What Is To Be Done, by Hugh Fitzgerald. I'm going to just copy the summary for my blog readers, some of whom will be upset over this piece:

1. Education of Infidels, so that they are well aware of the contents of the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira.

2. Education of Infidels, so that they understand how, over 1350 years, those texts have been received, and acted upon, by Believers.

3. Education of Infidels, so that they know a good deal about the history of Islamic conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered -- a subjugation that, no matter what the land, or the kind of non-Muslims conquered, the result was always the same.

4. Education of Muslims within Infidel countries, so that they will understand that the failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- are the direct result of Islam itself.

5. An end to all Muslim immigration to Infidel lands.

6. Imposition of tests for naturalization that require a detailed knowledge of the history and cultural achievements of the Western country in question -- see "Going Dutch" for one, admittedly exaggerated-for-effect example.

7. Inclusion, in the test for naturalization, of a loyalty oath, swearing sole allegiance to the political and legal institutions of the particular Infidel nation-state. In the case of the United States, allegiance to the Constitution would be considered adequate. Subsequent proof of perjury would, in the law, be considered valid grounds for stripping a naturalized citizen of that citizenship.

8. Making any support, direct or indirect, for Jihad -- defined as the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, including but not limited to the political and legal institutions of the host country – illegal.

9. Preventing any foreign funds from entering the country to be spent for the building or upkeep of mosques or other institutions connected to Islam, or for campaigns of Da'wa.

10. Curtailing in the prisons campaigns of Da'wa, on the grounds that the evidence shows that those who convert contain a high proportion of people who subsequently present a threat to society.

11. Refusing to bow to any Muslim demands for changes either in schools or in workplaces to accommodate Muslim rituals or Muslim ideas of what is fitting, from the hijab (where banned, as in France) or for extra time off for prayers in the middle of the work-day. This is not the sort of accommodation that Infidels, in Infidel lands, should be expected to make. In other words, the policy should be No Changes For Islam.

12. Reciprocity in the current number of mosques. Taking into account the absence, for tens of millions of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, of churches, Hindu temples, and other houses of worship, the policy should be to reduce the number of mosques in Western lands until there is a change in the Muslim lands. Reciprocity is a concept most people can understand and justify.

13. Reducing benefits so that large families (likely to be Muslim) cannot continue to be formed by those who assume they will be supported by the state. Muslim women will be expected to work in the same numbers as non-Muslim women, and will no longer be supported by the Infidel state (that is, Infidel taxpayers) to be breeding machines.

14. Enforcement of the laws against polygamy will be increased. Those practicing polygamy will be subject to being stripped of citizenship and returned to that Muslim state from which they, or their closest relatives, came. Since so many Muslims in Western Europe continue to observe, in Muslim enclaves, the mores of the countries that they, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from, the argument that they cannot "go back" can be dealt with. There is no obligation for the countries of Western Europe to live with the colossal error of their immigration policy.

15. There will be not the slightest concession made to Muslim sensibilities on the subject of aspects of Islam, including Muhammad. Those who wish to live in an environment where Islam is to be free of criticism are free to move to Muslim countries. There are many dozens of them. They control vast land areas, and vast natural resources. This is not a case of a tiny people having no place to go.

16. Efforts should be made to publicize the most celebrated defectors from Islam, to publish and distribute their books, to make much of them. This should be done both for the education of Infidels, and for the conceivable education of those who, born into Islam, may be persuaded to leave it.

The countries of North America and Western European countries can do much to make the practice of Islam, and campaigns of Da'wa, harder to support, and to make those Muslims who are intent on adhering to this ideology so dangerous to non-Muslims think again about remaining in the Western world. Benefits can be limited. Foreign sources of aid can be cut. The general atmosphere of continuing refusal to yield, and of ever-increasing Infidel awareness of the texts of Islam and the history of Muslim conquest, will naturally create conditions of suspicion and hostility that are not, to the well-informed, either wicked, or baseless but, alas, entirely reasonable.

The above makes sense to me. Unfortunately, realistically only some of these issues will ever be marginally touched on, until perhaps it is too late.

With that said, I don't see much difference in Muslim demands when pitted against fundamental Christian demands when it comes to gay marriage and choice and God in school. The only difference is the reaction of what happens when their mythological world views are shut down. Muslims are dangerous. Christians are collectively becoming more enlightened, even the most Fundamental of them, and though they are whining and bitching over the unChristianization of the West, they are impotent as reality has taken over. When it is said and done, most of them can't possibly believe with 100% conviction in their fantasy stories.

God Is For Suckers has a great comedy clip up by Bill Maher on religion (language warning):

I'm not worried about the Christian Right anymore. The internet is destroying the YEC movement very quickly. And the Fundy Jews are not a bother either, except they might give me a dirty look while shaking a finger at me.

It really gets me that Muslims collectively are against Israel's right to exist, and like to pretend that it is prior to 1948 when dealing with what the solution for the region is. By 1948, there was something like 600,000 Jews in the region. Many of whom migrated there from Europe, but so what? It is OK for millions of Muslims to migrate to the West but not OK for 300,000 Jews to migrate to a tiny region in the middle east that was non sovereign land? Talk about hypocrisy.

March 28, 2008

The much anticipated controversial short movie (17 minutes) FITNA is now available on line. It is really a very well done anti-Islam movie, which takes actual quotes from the Koran and quotes from radical Muslims and then illustrates how these Muslims and the Koran aren't just trying to scare us:

Originally, I had the below link up to show the movie, but it seems that Live Leak has received credible threats and wound up grudgingly taking the film off its site. Click the video below to see Live Leak's explanation:

I had to add the shot against Obama because I strongly believe that pulling out of Iraq will absolutely give radical Islam a perceived victory. And after watching FITNA, who wants that? Obama is not the right guy for the job today. Maybe in 100 years, but not today.

I also think that as John McCain stated about radical Muslims after 9/11 (as paraphrased by Rondi on her blog): "We are going to have to kill a lot of them and civilize the rest of them," is as true today as it was over 6 years ago.

Note: Correction, it was Lawrence Eagleburger, a McCain adviser, who was responsible for the above quote.

McCain is going to be the next President. From what I've watched and read, Hillary Clinton is pretty much mathematically eliminated from winning, and 28% of her supporters will vote for McCain if she doesn't end up as the Democratic nominee.

McCain is also no pushover for the Christian Right either. He'll concern himself with real business.

March 22, 2008

How can anyone with below average intelligence or better not see the idiocy and desperation of these tour guides? I really feel sorry for these children who are getting brainwashed by these reality denying blatantly dishonest yokels:

I'm glad ABC used reality biased reporting for the piece.

In other news, on this religious weekend I find it very appropriate that a race horse named Atheist will be making it's racing debut at a Kentucky racetrack (Turfway Park) today. I don't know if the owner is an atheist, or a religious whacko though. The sire (the horse's daddy) of Atheist is Devil His Due. Maybe he was named for his dam (his mother), A Real Sweetheart. Somehow, I doubt it:)

March 11, 2008

I'm sure John Hagee has done everything in his power to get John McCain to stop "believing" in evolution. Probably threatened not to support him, may have even offered him hookers. But so far McCain hasn't changed sold out on the evolution issue.

Now Hagee and the rest of the Republican supporting Young Earth Creationists have a choice: McCain or to write in JC.

"Darwin helped explain nature’s laws.He did not speculate, in his published theories at least, on the origin of life. He did not exclude God, for Whom the immensity of time is but a moment, from our presence. The only undeniable challenge the theory of evolution poses to Christian beliefs is its obvious contradiction of the idea that God created the world as it is in less than a week. But our faith is certainly not so weak that it can be shaken to learn that a biblical metaphor is not literal history. Nature doesn’t threaten our faith. On the contrary, when we contemplate its beauty and mysteries we cannot quiet in our heart an insistent impulse of belief that for all its variations and inevitable change, before its creation, in a time before time, God let it be so, and, thus, its many splendors and purposes abide in His purpose.”

And this after saying he believed in evolution:

"But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." It turns out that McCain's views have, well, evolved over time. Back in 2005, McCain thought that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes because "all points of view should be presented." By the next year, McCain said that he respected those who believed that world was created in seven days. However, he asked, "Should it be taught in a science class? Probably not."

Looks like he followed the Dover Trial or at least was made aware of the crock that intelligent design is.

Now for the Democrats

...in October The New York Times quoted Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) as declaring, ''I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying." She added, "I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."

“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”

Obama hasn't said much about evolution versus creation but he did say this:

"It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."

"Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution." Obama declared in that speech that the single biggest political gap in America was "between those who attend church regularly and those who don't." He then excoriated "conservative leaders" for exploiting this gap by suggesting that "religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design." At the very least, this implies that Obama believes intelligent design is unnecessarily divisive.

OK, now for some quick US political quips from an atheist Jew in Canada:

If Hillary really wants to win the Democrat nomination all she has to do is get a reporter to ask Obama if he thinks OJ killed Nicole. There is no right answer for Obama, either way he'll lose enough votes to blow his chances.

I wonder if Eliot Spitzer is an atheist Jew. I know he is an ethnic one. Apparently he grew up in a very secular household and he never had a Bar Mitzvah. Not having a Bar Mitzvah might be why he is in the news right not. There was a survey done at an Israeli University that showed that Jews who never had a Bar Mitzvah were most likely to overpay for hookers.

The difference between a Democrat and a Republican? Democrats have sex with female hookers.

"The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally."

"Why are they upset about what is going on in Gaza, while the Koran says to them: 'They shall kill and be killed.' So here they are – killing and being killed. What's wrong with that?"

"...you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics...Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light."

If you don't believe Wafa Sultan's words perhaps you'd like to explain the recent Jerusalem shooting? The shooting it typical of the Islamic mentality which makes no distinction between purposely targeting civilians versus purposely targeting military.Hey lets forget the shooting, lets just look at the Palestinian's culture and their reaction to the shooting. Remember, it was mostly 14 and 15 year old students who were senselessly shot to death while studying. Again, back to Elder of Ziyon's blog for the reactions.

I can tell you, the majority of Jews are grief stricken when a Palestinian child dies (I know there is a minority that doesn't get upset too; the indecent minority) when Israel defends herself. But when a Jewish child is murdered, the Palestinians collectively rejoice.

March 5, 2008

'According to Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, psychedelic drugs formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times.......the acacia tree, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, contain the same molecules as those found in plants from which the powerful Amazonian hallucinogenic brew ayahuasca is prepared....."As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either. Or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics."

I'm not going to defend Moses on this one or ancient Jews in Israel. I'm sure there have always been plants and concoctions throughout time that have had mind altering affects.

There is evidence that the acacia tree was around in Israel 3300 hundred years ago. But there is no evidence Moses existed, and even "negative evidence" that the Exodus occurred.

The story of Moses and the Exodus was most certainly a work of fiction that most likely got orally transmitted around 650-800 AD, until it was finally written down by Ezra and company around 450 BC.

Again I will link this fascinating video "The Bible Unearthed." Seriously, watch the series if you are at all interested in this topic (the history of Judaism) whatsoever. It is a real eye opener.

I look at history this way. If something deemed historical "factually" describes a supernatural event, then it is not historical non fiction; it is historical fiction.I've lived on this planet for 47 years, and I've yet to witness a supernatural event. Even in an age with all sorts of cameras, I've seen nothing recorded that is supernatural. I've yet to see anyone fly, or an amputee magically grow back a limb.I've never heard God's voice or has anyone ever recorded God's voice. Invisible people don't go to my house and move furniture. When I see a tooth brush in the kitchen, I know my cat brought it down the stairs.

My point is, that in order for history to be put together, all sources that claim the supernatural need to be ignored as fantasy. Dated real letters, archaeological artifacts, secular historian writings, etc. is what needs to be looked at to figure out what really happened.

There should be lots of evidence that Jesus existed found dated between 1-40 AD for example. None is found. Doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it does mean that it is highly unlikely. We do know someone started Christianity, and it was probably Paul or someone exactly like Paul. But as Rook Hawkins from Rational Response Squad points out, Paul never talked about Jesus as a historical person.So it is possible that Paul was smoking or snorting too much acacia.

The same is true with the Exodus, but if you watch the video, the case for the Exodus is even less probable than a historical Jesus. Canaan was already full of Egyptians at the time the Exodus was to have occurred, and monotheism didn't appear until between 650-450 BC. If oral history had any legs, there should be immediate evidence that Jews worshiped one God from the Exodus on. The evidence points that Jews were most likely an ethnicity first, and then the ethnicity started a religion followed by the masses in a localized area by 450 BC.

No doubt, the original writers of these stories had very good imaginations, and it is highly possible they were doing mind altering substances when they made the stuff up.

Sherlock Holmes' author Sir Conan Doyle had a heroin/coke habit. Great imagination. He even gave Holmes a heroin/morphine habit which apparently helped give Sherlock that extra edge to be the greatest detective ever.

The "Burning Bush" could easily of been an acacia tree on fire. And the affects on anyone breathing in the fumes would have made them awfully creative.

The original dude who made up the Exodus/Moses story probably sounded a lot like Cheech and Chong with a middle eastern accent. No doubt he thought he was talking to that bush and the bush was talking back, giving him "the history" of Jewish people.